3 ms·
How is this different than the traditional arts and entertainment fields? Most singers, song writers, painters, sculptors, writers, etc also struggle their whol
by rgejman 11y ago
How is this different than the traditional arts and entertainment fields? Most singers, song writers, painters, sculptors, writers, etc also struggle their whole life to make a living. Just because your art is digital and you can reach hundreds of thousands of people at the click of a button doesn't mean that you will become rich overnight. Sure we need new revenue models for content on the Internet--but my prediction is that they will lead to a lot fewer people watching content (much less paying for it). Not to mention that if your fan base is comprised of 13 year olds who need to ask their parents for a credit card every time, you can't make much money off of them.
- sp332 11y agoFamous ones though? It doesn't take 100,000 fans for a musician to make a living.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago100k subscribers isn't 100k fans. A fan, in the past, would be someone who shelled out $15 for your album and goes to your shows. A "fan" in this context is some guy who stopped by your youtube video, hit skip on your ad, clicked subscribe, watched a little and left and maybe checks out your next video or two. The monetization per fan here is pretty stark. You would get a few bucks in pocket from the first example and next to nothing from the second. Selling 500,000 records is decent cash. Getting 500,000 views of a jokey video that caters to kids or the easily distracted isn't.
- sp332 11y agoI guess the article waffles between subscribers and views, because subscribers are worth a lot more when you're negotiating product placement money. So I guess the analogous question is: Say 100,000 people are interested enough to notice every time you put a song out. Is it plausible that collectively they decline pay you enough to make a living?